Ukraine (And Everyone Else) Develops Glide Bombs

A Russian FAB-3000 with a UMPK guidance kit attached, converting the unguided bomb into a glide bomb | Wikimedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glide_bomb#/media/File:FAB-3000_with_UMPK_kit.png

Ukraine has added glide bombs to its list of military ordnance, enabling Ukraine to send modified dumb bombs up to 100km away. This likely won’t alter the outcome of the war in Ukraine, but the democratization of this technology is setting off alarm bells in the US.

Joint Direct Attack Munitions were the bread-and-butter for the US military, maintaining a multi-decade monopoly on the precision strike technology…but all of that is changing. Now that Ukraine and Russia both have this tech in their hands, it’s only a matter of time before it appears everywhere else.

This is yet another sign of the US stepping back from its role as global protector; meaning American strategic primacy is coming to an end.

You can find more info about glide bomb technology appearing in Russia’s arsenal and the beginning of the proliferation of this tech in the linked video released on March 12, 2024:

Russian Bombs Get an Upgrade
Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Colorado. And today we’re going to talk about a change in military tech that just happened in Ukraine. Specifically, there are factions of the Ukrainian military industrial complex that are now putting together glide bombs. Glide bomb is basically when you’ve got an old dumb bomb that you put a guidance kit on. 

It has kind of wings on it. And so instead of dropping it, it kind of glides to the target and the Ukrainian prototypes that are being tested right now indicate that they can go upwards of 100km, about 60 miles, which is well beyond the front lines. 

Why this matters, the Ukrainians have been on the receiving end of glide bombs these last couple of years. The Russians have converted several of their old Soviet bombs, which are typically a much larger than the ones the US uses. We use, 500 pound bombs. Sometimes they use either kilo bombs. Sometimes there’s even a thousand kilo bombs. 

Anyway, they drop them from outside of air defense capability. They drop them from within their air superiority envelope. So they just have basically modified dump bombs coming in that can’t be intercepted. And some of the bigger ones, when they hit, have a blast radius that’s more than a quarter of a mile. 

And so you drop a dozen or so of these in the general vicinity of a fortification, and then Russian forces can then move in. That’s how they’ve been used to this point. The Ukrainians probably won’t be using them the same way because they don’t have the manpower. That’s necessary to penetrate the Russian lines. And there’s multiple layers of minefields as well, making that more difficult. 

So we use it against things like supply depots and, convoys. But the Ukrainians are already doing that with first person drones. So the ability to change the battlefield in Ukraine, by Ukraine, having some of these is probably pretty limited. The targeting sequences are probably just not going to be as robust as it might be for the other side. 

For a country that is more likely to be on the attack, the Ukrainians are typically on the defense. So it’s not that there’s no utility. It’s not. It’s just not a game changer. Also, there’s just the amount of effort that it takes to build one and test it because every prototype is destroyed as opposed to like a first person drone, where you can fly it back and forth without actually having it blow up to make sure it works. 

And you can get new iterations every month. This one will probably take a little bit longer, but it still has a huge impact, just not in Ukraine and everywhere else. The issue here is that the United States has had a de facto monopoly on this sort of technology for decades. We hear we call them Jay Dams, Joint Direct Attack Munitions. 

We took our old Cold War bombs. We put a kit and some things on it and do precision targeting. And through the 1990s, the US had a total monopoly. These were first debuted during the first Iraq War. 

Desert Storm back in 1982 and then have been incrementally upgraded since then. But really, it wasn’t until as recently as five years ago that any other country in the world had their own. 

Well, the Russians developed their own last year, and now Ukraine, a country that is much smaller, with a much smaller technical base and industrial base, has them as well. And if Russia and Ukraine can have them, you know that it’s just a matter of choice before countries like Korea, both of them, Japan, Taiwan, China, Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, Canada, pretty much every country in NATO, Brazil, Argentina, Algeria, Israel, obviously, I don’t know if Iran could do it, but the United Arab Emirates could. 

Anyway. The point is, there is a long list of countries where this is no longer a technical barrier. And the technology that the United States has had a complete monopoly on this last generation, which has allowed it to shape strategic environments around the world, is now gone. And it’s only a matter of time, probably months, not even years, before we see copycat versions of the Russian and other Ukrainian versions popping up in a half a dozen different countries, and within five years they will be everywhere. 

Which means if the United States is going to maintain its military posture of having a global position without really any meaningful pushback, it’s going to need new technological tricks to do that. Most likely, combined with the Trump administration’s backing away from every alliance we have, this means that the United States is going to vacate militarily large portions of the planet and just let the chips fall where they may. 

Now, for those of you who’ve been following my work for the last decade, you will know that this was in some version probably going to happen because of American political considerations anyway. But we’re now set up a technological U.S. cannot just leave because it wants to. It’s going to be technologically pushed out from certain areas. And the question now is where first. 

And we just it’s too soon to have an answer to that question. There’s too many decisions that have to be made up at the white House, that color where the map is going to go blue and where it’s going to go red. But bottom line, the era of American strategic primacy with global reach that is now over. 

And it’s now a question about managing the withdrawal and dealing with the consequences of that.

Everybody Wants to Bomb Qatar

Hands holding the flag of qatar in front of a building in the middle east

Israeli airstrikes on Hamas targets in Qatar mark a significant shift in Israel’s positioning in the region. Israel has made it clear that they are willing to strike anywhere, regardless of alliances or presence of US bases…bad news bears.

Qatar may be filthy, filthy rich, but all that money couldn’t buy military aptitude. These strikes caught Qatar with its pants around its ankles, something that rival Arab states weren’t upset about.

However, the bigger story here is that Qatar hosts america’s regional military headquarters, and Israel only gave the US a ten-minute heads up before the missiles started flying. Whatever influence the United States had over Israel military actions has quite simply dissolved. And THAT will be noticed globally.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here comes to you from Colorado. And today we’re going to talk about what went down on September 9th in the Middle East. Specifically, the Israelis dropped a few bombs and missiles on sites in the country of Qatar. That’s a little thumb like thing in the Persian Gulf. Small country, less than a million population going after some Hamas targets. 

Hamas, of course, is the military slash political group that used to run Gaza and is now on the receiving end of the Israeli occupation campaign of Gaza. Three big things. Oh my God, so many things, but three big things that come from this. First of all, let’s talk about Israel. Israel has never, ever, ever bombed anyone in the Persian Gulf. 

I mean, they’ve gone after Lebanon because it’s right there. They go after Syria, especially as it’s fallen apart. And, they’ve gone after Iran most recently in a big way. But the last time they bombed anyone else was like in the 1980s, they took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq. And before that, you’re talking about the Arab-Israeli wars of the 1970s and 1960s. And 1950s. 

This is a significant escalation. There’s been an expansion of their capabilities as they’ve gotten the Joint Strike fighter. They’ve gotten better weapons from the United States that have better range. Looks like what happened is they flew down into the Red sea and launched missiles over Saudi Arabia to hit Qatar. They didn’t do a direct overflight. 

Probably. 

And this level of aggression, this willingness to ramp up this newborn policy of taking action wherever and why ever, is immense. Because, you know, Qatar is a U.S. ally. Saudi Arabia is a U.S. ally. And for the Israelis to be so brazen, this is something that is going to continue until and unless a significant series of countries that includes up to in the United, including the United States, levy some sort of massive economic or military penalty on Israel for acting like this way, at the moment doesn’t seem like that is in the cards. 

And honestly, if you’re in the Persian Gulf, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, like Qatar or the United Arab Emirates or Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, there’s really nothing you can do. So this is the new norm of Israel just dropping bombs wherever in the region it wants to. And that will cause any number of political complications and strategic complications, because at the moment they’re going after Hamas. 

But there are other militant groups that the Israelis are not big fans of. And should a government in the region become more hostile, the Israelis have now demonstrated that really doesn’t matter what your air defense systems are, the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar, they have some shiny hardware, but it’s clear they don’t know how to use it very well. 

And as the Israelis discovered with Iran, even if you’ve got stuff that you’ve integrated over decades, it really can’t stand up to the technology the Israelis can bring to bear. So all the royal houses of this region are now on notice. And if they do things that the Israelis don’t like, they can expect visits by explosives. 

The one thing that was really holding back the Israelis before, from doing things like this is the idea if you knock off the government, you could have Sunni jihadists boil up and turn the area into a scarred wasteland that would eventually cause problems for Israel. 

Well, some version of that has happened in Syria and Israel looks just fine. So if the nightmare situation is not something to be avoided, then destabilizing the neighborhood is something they don’t have a problem with. So that not all of that is number one. The Israeli side, number two is the Qatari side. Qatar is a small country. 

doesn’t have a lot going forward except for a big natural gas field, a little bit of oil. And in doing so, it’s become one of the richest countries in the world in per capita terms, because there’s very few people, the locals are the fattest humans in history because the national security program has run by Doha, the capital is to get everybody, heart disease and obesity so that they can’t protest. 

So, I mean, these are a whole country of taboos, that basically do nothing but eat all day, and they’re serviced by a couple to maybe 4 million today, expats who basically take care of their every whim. 

As a result, no shock that they don’t know how to use their own military equipment. But they do have, however, is ambition and arrogance and just supreme levels. The ruling government of the of the ruling family, is convinced that they were ordained by Allah himself to be a major power. And since they were late to the game, they basically went out and cut deals with everyone that nobody else would deal with. 

So the deal with the Muslim Brotherhood, they deal with Hamas, they deal with everybody, in order to prove how important they are. And then they throw a lot of cash at whatever the issue happens to be. So they are on the opposite side of a lot of the other Sunni governments in the region. And so while no one in the region is thrilled that the Israelis have gone and basically proven how powerless that they are in the face of a superior military force, there are a lot of countries, most notably, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, that are pointing at and kind of going, because they are not loved at all. 

And seeing them taken down by such a big notch and made to look so incompetent and so impotent, is honestly very rewarding to a great number of people. What impact this will have on Qatari foreign policy moving forward is unclear, but certainly Israel is indicating to them that there’s certain lines they just can’t cross or bombs will fall. 

The government was not targeted. This was all targeted against Hamas groups and the Hamas groups were only kind of sort of taken out because they use longer range weaponry. But we now know with refueling that the Israelis could easily get there and back with more precise weapons. So something to watch for the future. In the meantime, Qatars on notice. 

Third, and perhaps most importantly, is how the United States fits into this, Qatar is the location of Centcom headquarters. This is where the United States coordinates everything throughout the entire region, including the recently closed down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a lot of countries in the region and up to and including Israel until very recently and until last week, thought that having Centcom headquarters in Qatar made Qatar bulletproof because the Americans offered an express security guarantee to the country. 

Well, that has proven to be wrong. And we now have a really interesting situation shaping up. Yes, the United States is willing to allow countries to bomb places where it has bases and not do anything that makes the United States look toothless. And for Israel, specifically, Donald Trump is now in a position where he can’t get the Israeli government to do or to not do anything. 

The Americans were notified of the attack less than ten minutes before the missiles flew. No. No way, no way. Enough time to get through the chain of command for Trump to say, call up Benjamin Netanyahu is the prime minister of Israel. Say, don’t do this. So the United States is now being actively ignored by the country, in the region that is supposedly its closest religious demographic and strategic ally in the region. 

That is not a good look for an administration who thinks that it’s tough, and that will have consequences here, there, and a lot of places in between.

The Federal Reserve’s Dilemma

Photo of the building of the US Federal Reserve

The Fed is facing a catch-22. While they would typically lower rates when consumption and growth begin to slow, there are also competing policies that are shrinking the labor force and driving up costs via tariffs. Other countries have faced similar dilemmas due to demographic issues, but the US is in this pickle largely due to policy decisions.

With record deficits and no political will to cut entitlements, cooperation between Trump and the Fed isn’t going to happen. So, the Fed is stuck between a rock and a hard place…

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from a breezy Colorado. This week we have a Federal Reserve meeting in D.C. where they’re going to decide what to do with interest rates. The idea is, if you lower interest rates, you reduce the cost of capital, which spurs economic growth, whereas if you raise interest rates, you dampen demand, which tends to get inflation under control and balancing growth versus inflation. 

That is basically why the Federal Reserve exists and why we have monetary policy in the first place. The real problem the Federal Reserve is facing right now is policy out of the white House. The combination of high and rising tariffs are increasing the cost of operation for American businesses and increasing purchasing costs for American consumers, which is reducing economic growth. 

At the same time, anti migration policies the Trump administration has implemented is shrinking the labor pool to the point that the American population is actually expected to shrink this year for the first time in American history. And that is triggering inflationary pressures throughout the supply chain that are complemented by the tariffs. So tariffs like 50% tariffs on steel, aluminum, copper drastically increase the cost of building for, among other things. 

And so the fed is kind of in a catch 22. The slower growth caused by the tariffs on the consumption side would seem to indicate that it wants to lower interest rates to spark growth, but the higher inflation, because of the tariffs and the immigration policies are raising the cost of everything or raising inflation, suggesting that the Federal Reserve should, if anything, raise rates in order to keep inflation under control. 

And there is no way to win this, there’s no way to make everybody happy and there is no balance to be found. So the Federal Reserve is in a catch 22. Now, this is not a unique situation. If you go back to the last 20 years in Europe and Japan, we’ve had somewhat similar situation, but largely caused by demographic issues as populations age out of the 2030s and 40s and into their 50s, 60s and 70s, consumption naturally goes down and eventually you lose people from the workforce on the tax base altogether. 

And when that happens, monetary policy is not nearly as useful tool. And you’re dealing with exactly these same issues, chronically lower demand and consumption because the population is getting poorer and older and ongoing inflationary pressures as the labor force shrinks. The difference between the European and the Japanese experience and the American experience is in the European. In the Japanese experience, it was primarily a demographic issue, whereas in the American experience, at least so far this year, it’s primarily a policy issue. 

Now, what has happened in the United States in the past is the Federal Reserve chair has sat down with the American president to discuss priorities and what it takes to get what you want. This was most famously done by Federal Reserve chair, former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan and former American President Bill Clinton back in the 90s, where the discussion was, if you can keep the budget under control, if you don’t do a lot of deficit spending, then I, the Federal Reserve chair, can keep interest rates low and generate a boom which lasted for the better part of a decade. 

Unfortunately, that is not possible this time around, and not just because the president doesn’t like the Federal Reserve chair. The other problem is simply that the fiscal deficit we have today is bigger than we have had at any time in American history, with the exception of a couple of hiccups during war time and getting that deficit under control would require basically eliminating Medicaid and cutting Medicare and Social Security by half. 

That’s how overextended we are. So it leaves the fed in a no win situation. Governance is hard, especially when you’re a quasi independent institution like the Federal Reserve.

Why Trump’s Stance on Canada Makes Sense

Canadian flag flying over Parliament

The Trump administration’s tough stance on Canada isn’t as novel (or as arbitrary) as it may seem.

The US has always been cautious with neighbors on the northern border, from Britain in the past to modern Canada. This view follows the long-standing US strategic view that an independent power on the northern border could pose a security risk.

That caution is wise and should be applied to any potential economic integration as well. Merging the US and Canada might sound nice, but when you lift the hood…not so much. The US would be stuck with the financial burden of caring for Canada’s rapidly aging population.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey everybody. Hello. From Rock Island Pass at the border between the Hoover Wilderness and Yosemite National Park. Today we’re taking a question from the Patreon crowd as we’re doing this whole trip. What what what what why? Why is the Trump administration hit Canada so much? Is there anything to it or or should we just whinge? That’s actually the specific text of the question. 

Let’s start by saying that there is is something to it and it goes beyond her. The Canadians burning our Capitol, back in the War of 1812. And you Canadians, you cannot pledge innocence from this. You know you did it. Yes. The Brits drove the car pool, but it was Ontarian Abrines that brought the torches to the party and actually burned the white House down. 

Now bigger picture. The United States is a large country that basically has the best parts of the continent. But that doesn’t mean that the United States is alone on the continent. Obviously, Canada is the entire northern frontier and throughout American history. If you go back to before reconstruction, the United States was always concerned that an extra hemispheric power would establish a beachhead somewhere in the vicinity of the North American continent and potentially use it to interrupt American power or maybe even launch an invasion. 

And of course, most recently and from the beginning, actually, Great Britain was the power of concern. Now, I don’t mean to suggest that there was a British invasion imminent or anything like that. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m going to piss off enough people with this video as it is. But the idea that you can have an independent power right on America’s borders that doesn’t bear some degree of security risk is just silly. 

That doesn’t mean that I think that there’s a war around the corner, that it’s even inevitable. Certainly not imminent, but it’s not a blind policy decision to decide that you actually want all of the continent under a single flag. And both it for those of you to the south of us in Mexico, this applies to you as well. 

Now, that said, I think that the borders between the United States and its neighbors are fine. I’m not worried about an invasion. There’s good buffers, whether it’s, lakes and force in the north or deserts and mountains in the south. The population density of Canada certainly couldn’t do it by itself. Mexico maybe a little bit better. But northern Mexico is such a logistical snarl because of a lack of infrastructure. 

That too, I’m not concerned about. But the bottom line is, is that this didn’t come out of nowhere. This has been part of the American strategic view for 200 years, and to pretend otherwise is being a little bit windy. Now. That said, do I think we should do it? I think candidate even if they ask. No, because it’s bad math. 

When industrialization really got going roughly a century ago, people started moving from the farms and into the cities and they started having fewer kids. And that process was much more intense in Canada than it was in the United States, because I don’t know if you knew this, but can it gets cold in the winter. And so the Canadians basically huddled together in their cities for warmth, and there’s a much higher dense urbanization rate. 

Oh, got a message dense urbanization rate for Canadians than there is for Americans, which means that the Canadians of age are much slower. They’ve also probably played the immigration card as hard as they can. It’s starting to generate social disruption. And so the old Trudeau government and the new government have cracked down on immigration. Quite a bit, basically slowed it to a trickle. 

Oh, Mr. Popular, all of a sudden, which means that Canada is aging much, much, much quicker than the United States. And remember, in the United States, the baby boomers are already two thirds retired. So we know we face an explosion in social welfare payments over the next decade. Canada is ahead of us, and Canada lacks a millennial generation of size comparable to what we have south of the border. 

Which means if we were to do a merger of the Canadian provinces and the American states, it would be up to the United States to pay for the retirement of most Canadian citizens, most notably in Ontario, Quebec, and in the maritime provinces where the demographic decline is most advanced. So from a purely financial point of view, merging the two countries would be economic suicide for the United States. 

Let Canada pay for this. And if that means Canada pays for other things too, great.

Syria and the Return of the March

Woman holding a Syrian flag over a vehicle

Syria has been riddled with problems for ages, but will all that chaos boil up and spill over? The short answer is that it’s unlikely, but let’s unpack it.

The reason for this is due to a mostly forgotten concept of a “march” or a stateless zone on the edge of organized states. Given Syria’s fragmented and distinct regions, the country has never been fully cohesive; having marches prevents that chaos from spreading further. These areas would typically remain lawless, getting periodically raided to keep anything from festering up, until a neighboring power intervenes. Since Israel, Turkey, and Iraq are managing Syria’s borders, chaos can’t breakout too far.

On a larger scale, marches might be making a comeback. As deglobalization sets in and demographics become more strained, many regions could begin to resemble these lawless, stateless zones.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey, all. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from Yosemite. For the obligatory I’m backpacking video, but I hurt myself, so I’m in the tent for a few hours, but, my feet are messed up. Anyway, we’re going to take a question from the Patreon crowd. And specifically, do I expect the chaos in Syria to spill over to other countries? 

Yes and no. Just not in a traditional sense. Keep in mind that there’s basically seven series. You’ve got the coastal zone, which is the Alawites, a mountain zone, which is Christians. You’ve got the interior cities of harm, Hama and Aleppo, which are, Sunni Muslim. You’ve got Damascus, which is basically a fortress city. You’ve got this thin line of people that live along the Euphrates, and then you’ve got the desert. 

Right now, ISIS or Islamic State, whatever you want to call it, has been banished to the desert. But in the past they have conquered large chunks of the territory. Anyway, the Alawites out on the coast were the ones who ruled Syria until recently. They were pretty much hated by everybody. And now they have been overthrown. 

There is now a Sunni group that is attempting to cobble this country together. But, the Assads, those are the Alawites who were in charge, had the advantage of Hezbollah backing them up and Iran backing them up and Russia backing them up. And this new government doesn’t have any of that. And so it’s already descended into basically the second phase of the Civil War. 

This one will probably in time be much, much, much, much worse than the first one. And remember, the first one generated millions of refugees and hundreds of thousands of dead. 

Okay, what you have to remember about Syria is until we got to the after World War one, decolonization effort, this was never really a country. This was a zone where, because of all the differences in geography, was basically a bunch of mini states at best, or was amalgamated into some other governments, like, say, the Ottoman Empire or one of the caliphates of the past, which means you should never expect Syria to be a stable place, like it was under the Assad dynasty. 

Instead, what we’re seeing is a return of a concept that we in the West have pretty much forgotten about, called marches. A march is a zone outside of civilization. You have your cities, you have your infrastructure, you have your military and economy. But there’s a zone beyond you that is not owned by another country. It’s stateless. 

And in zones like that, chaos reigns unless and until a superior power comes in and imposes their will on it. And if you look at this region back through history, it has been a march for most of history. 

Marchers basically take two forms. First form is this stateless zone. When you can get some crazy group like the Islamic State that comes in. But that only works when no one who has a country who is bordering the march has the ability to interfere. Alternatively, if anyone who is born in the region does have the ability to interfere, they basically come in from time to time, burn everything down, and then go home because they know there’s nothing here that is worth, building up themselves. 

So for serious specifically, you have Israel, you have Turkey, you have Mesopotamia. And if you look back ten years ago, when Israel was occupied with domestic issues and the Turks had taken a vacation from history and Iraq was in civil war, well, then the Islamic State does pretty well. But that’s not the situation we’re in now. The Turks are on the roll. 

The Israelis are being very aggressive against any potential challenger and Iraq has managed to consolidate itself into a new nation state. We should get used to this sort of concept in lots of areas as demographics decline, as globalization really kicks in and wrecks economies, there’s going to be a lot of states that just the center won’t hold, and we’re going to see a lot more of the world looking like Syria, looking like a march than we’ve become used to in the last 75 years.

REPOST: Jets, Drones & Refineries: Europe Remembers Geopolitics

Based on our discussion yesterday, we’re looking back at this post from April of last year to see how things have evolved.

It looks like the Europeans may have figured out that Russia’s war plans don’t end in Ukraine, so more and more countries are beginning to send aid to the Ukrainians. The Americans, however, are still working through flawed economics and political considerations.

The Norwegian government has decided to send some F-16s to Ukraine, joining Denmark, the Netherlands, and others in providing military support. The most important shift we’re seeing in aid sent to Ukraine is that it is intended to be used on Russian infrastructure and military units…within the Russian border.

The Biden administration’s caution regarding Ukrainian targeting is based on flawed economic analysis and pointless political considerations. This has led us to a strange intersection of this war, where Europe is done limiting Ukraine’s actions in fighting, but the more commonly aggressive American stance is still lagging behind.

Click to enlarge the image
Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

TranscripT

Hey, everybody. Peter Zeihan here, coming to you from a very windy Colorado. It is the 16th of April, and the news today is that the Norwegian government has announced that they are joining the coalition of growing countries that is setting F-16 jets to Ukraine, specifically the foreign minister, a guy by the name of Aspen Barth, I’d, probably has said specifically he hopes and encourages the Ukrainians to use the jets that at the moment are being provided by a coalition of Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands, to stark to target infrastructure and military units actually in Russia proper.

In fact, his phrase was the deeper the better lot going on here to impact. So number one, to this point, the NATO countries have tried to limit the direct attacks by the Ukrainians with their equipment or with equipment that is donated, in order to prevent an escalation. But a few people’s minds have been tripped in recent days because the Ukrainians are now using one and two tonne bombs to completely obliterate civilian infrastructure and are going after aid workers, including, things like E-m-s services.

And this is really tripped the minds of a lot of people in northern Europe in particular, that this war is now gotten way too serious to have any sort of guardrails on what the Ukrainians can target. The French. Well, they have not weighed in on this topic specifically. They’re now openly discussing when, not whether when French troops are going to be deployed to Ukraine to assist the Ukrainians in a rearguard action.

And we have a number of other countries, especially in the Baltics and in Central Europe, that are also wanting to amp up the European commitment to the war. In part, this is just the recognition that if Ukraine falls, they’re all next, and in part is that the United States has abdicated a degree of leadership, both because of targeting restrictions and because there’s a faction within the House of Representatives that is preventing aid from flowing to Ukraine.

So the Europeans are stepping up. In fact, they’ve been stepping up now for nine months. They provided more military and financial aid to the Ukrainians each and every month for nine months now. And this is just kind of the next logical step in that process, which puts the United States in this weird position of being the large country that is arguing the most vociferously for a dialing back of targeting, by Ukraine, of Russian assets in Russia.

If you guys remember, back about three weeks ago, there was a report from the Financial Times that the Biden administration had alerted the Ukrainians that they did not want the Ukrainians to target, for example, oil refineries in Russia because of the impact that could have on global energy prices. And I refrained from commenting at that time because it wasn’t clear to me from how far up the chain it has come.

That warning. But in the last week we have heard national Security adviser Jake Sullivan and the vice president, Kamala Harris, both specifically on and on record, warn the Ukrainians that the United States did not want them targeting this sort of infrastructure because of the impact it would have on policy, and on inflation. Now that we know it’s coming from the White House itself, I feel kind of released to comment.

And I don’t really have a very positive comment here. There’s two things going on. Number one, it’s based on some really, really faulty logic and some bad economic analysis. So step one is the concern in the United States that higher energy prices are going to restrict the ability of the Europeans to rally to the cause and support Ukraine.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of the Europeans realize that if Ukraine falls they’re next and most of the countries with an activist foreign policy are already firmly on the side of an expanded targeting regime. The biggest holdout would be Germany, where we have an unstable and unconfident leader and coalition that wants to lead from the back, not the front, which I can understand, but most of the Europeans have realized that if we’re actually getting ready for an actual war between Europe and Russia, that’s not going to be free.

And higher energy costs are just kind of baked into that pie. So almost all of the Europeans have basically cut almost all Russian energy out of their fuel mixes already in anticipation for that fight. So argument number one, gone. number two, the idea that this is going to cause the war to expand in a way that will damage Ukraine more.

Well, one of the first things that the Russians did back in 2022, in the war, was target all Ukrainian oil processing facilities. They don’t have much left. So, yes, there’s more things that the Russians can do, but this is basically turned into a semi genocidal war. So it’s really hard to restrain the Ukrainians and doing things that are going to hurt the Russian bottom line that allows them to fund the war.

So that kind of falls apart. specifically, the Ukrainians have proven with home grown weaponry they don’t even need Western weapons for this. They can do precision attacks on Russian refineries, going after some of the really sensitive bits. Now, refineries are huge facilities with a lot of internal distance and a lot of standoff distance. So if you have an explosion in one section, it doesn’t make the whole thing go up like it might in Hollywood.

As a result, there are very specific places that you have to hit, and that requires a degree of precision and accuracy that most countries can’t demonstrate. But the Ukrainians have a specifically go after something called a distillation tower, which is where you basically take heated crude and you put into a giant fractionated column, if you remember high school chemistry, and if you can poke a hole in that, it’s hot and it’s pressurized.

So you get something that spurts out and based where on the verticality you hit. The products that hit are either flammable or explosive. So we’re including a nice little graphic here to show you what that looks like. the Ukrainians have shown that they can hit this in a dozen different facilities, and the Russians have proven that it’s difficult for them to get this stuff back online, because most of the equipment, especially for his distillation tower, is not produced in Russia.

And a lot of it’s not even produced in China. It’s mostly Western tech. So as of April 2nd, which was the last day we had an attack on energy infrastructure in Russia, about 15% of Russian refining capacity had been taken offline. In the two weeks since then, they’ve gotten about a third of that back on using parts they were able to cobble together.

But it gives you an idea that this is a real drain, because we’re talking about 600,000 barrels a day of refined product that just isn’t being made right now. That affects domestic stability in Russia, that affects the capacity of the Russians to operate in the front. And yes, it does impact global energy prices, but that leads me to the third thing that I have a problem with the Biden administration here, and that the impact on the United States is pretty limited.

the United States is not simply the world’s largest producer of crude oil. It’s also the world’s largest producer of refined product to the degree that it is also the world’s largest exporter of refined product. So not only will the United States feel the least pinch in terms of energy inflation from anything in Russia going offline, we also have the issue that the US president, without having to go through Congress, can put restrictions of whatever form he wants on United States export of product.

Doesn’t require a lot of regulatory creativity to come up with a plan that would allow to a limiting of the impact to prices, for energy products in the United States. And I got to say, it is weird to see the United States playing the role of dove when it comes to NATO issues with Ukraine. Usually the U.S. is the hawk.

Now, I don’t think this is going to last. the Biden administration’s logic and analysis on this is just flat out wrong. geopolitically, there’s already a coalition of European countries that wants to take the fight across the border into Russia proper, because they know that now, that’s really the only way that the Ukrainians can win this war.

Second, economically, you take let’s say you take half of Russia’s refined product exports offline. Will that have an impact? Yeah, but it will be relatively moderate because most countries have been moving away from that already. And the Russian product is going to over halfway around the world before it makes it to an end client. So it’s already been stretched.

Removing it will have an impact. But we’ve had two years to adapt, so it’s going to be moderate, though not to mention in the United States, as the world’s largest refined product exporter, we’re already in a glut here, and it doesn’t take much bureaucratic minutia in order to keep some of that glut from going abroad. So mitigating any price impact here for political reasons.

And third, the political context is wrong to the Biden administration is thinking about inflation and how that can be a voter issue, and it is a voter issue. But if you keep the gasoline and the refined product bottle up in the United States, the only people are going to be pissed off are the refiners. And I don’t think any of those people are going to ever vote for the Biden administration in the first place.

There is no need to restrict Ukrainians room to maneuver in order to fight this war. in order to get everything that the Biden administration says that it wants to be.

Ukraine Hammers Russian Oil Infrastructure

photo of oil barrels

The Ukrainians have ramped up strikes on Russian energy infrastructure, sending ripples through Russia’s refining capacity and triggering fuel shortages. But what changes enabled this to occur?

Three big things have shifted, giving Ukraine political cover and better tools to disrupt Russian oil flows. These include opposition from the US diminishing, Europe cutting off Russian oil and gas (besides Hungary and Slovakia), and longer-range weapons to strike deeper into Russia.

This is allowing Kyiv to strike Russia’s most critical oil hubs; think the pipeline nexus Samara, or pumping stations that will force Novorossiysk to collapse, or even northern hubs serving the Baltic. Since oil remains the largest revenue source for the Russians, sustained attacks on this infrastructure threatens Moscow’s ability to fight this war.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all Peter Zeihan here coming from Colorado on a foggy day. Today we’re gonna talk about what’s going on in Russia, specifically. Ukraine has severely ramped up its attacks on Russian energy infrastructure. This is something that the Ukrainians have been doing in bits and pieces for about a year and a half now, but it’s now taken on a whole new level, and we have somewhere between 15 and 20% of Russia’s oil processing capacity offline. 

And it’s generating localized gasoline shortages throughout the Russian system, including in the capital, and certainly in the provinces that are closer to the actual front in the Ukraine war. So what has changed? Three things. First of all, Biden’s gone. Biden had this idea that attacks on energy infrastructure in, the Russian space would raise energy prices globally to a point that would be politically unpalatable for Americans. 

Now, I was always on the other side of that equation, as a rule, gasoline markets, not to be confused with oil markets, trade differently. And so a disruption in one hemisphere does not automatically trigger a broad scale energy price increase in the other. But regardless, Biden has now gone. That argument is no longer being made in Washington. 

And from Ukraine’s point of view, the gloves are off a little bit. Number two Europe, the Europeans are no longer taking any piped oil or natural gas from the Russians at all, aside from a small volumes that come into places like Hungary, which are basically operating as Russian parties. Which means that from Ukraine’s point of view, there’s no longer diplomatic or economic complication in Europe. 

The deals to transit oil and natural gas across Ukrainian space expired at the beginning of the year. Everyone who was smart and saw the writing on the wall, moved away from the Russian sources completely again, Hungary being the standout exception. And now going after the infrastructure in any way, shape or form basically has the unofficial blessing of the European Union. 

So the Hungarians and to the lesser degree the Slovaks, are screaming bloody murder. But Ukraine isn’t giving transit fees. They’re not taking any Russian energy. No one else in the EU is taking any of it either. So it’s okay to go after the infrastructure. We’ve actually seen a couple pumping stations get hit already. Third, the Ukrainians are much better at this. 

They’ve been developing bit by bit heavier payloads and longer range weaponry that can strike further and further and harder and harder at Russian targets. And so now reliably, it’s to a range of about 1200 kilometers. The Ukrainians can be striking, and that’s about 700 miles. And that puts a lot in range of these potential weapons, including the entire Moscow region. 

But Moscow is not the most important zone here when you’re talking about oil. There are a few pipeline hubs in the Russian system where several pipeline networks from different zones come together for focusing and refining, and then go on to export points. And in my opinion, the single most important of them is the city of Samara in southwestern Russia. 

It’s basically roughly north of the Caspian Sea, maybe northwest a little bit. Anyway, something around 3 million barrels a day flows through there at any given time. Pipelines, of course, can be redirected to a degree. But we now have the Ukrainians targeting refineries in the Samara area. And when they do that, the crude can’t be refined. It needs to be kept in the pipeline and sent on, and the pipelines flow on can only take so much traffic. 

So it’s put a real crimp in what the Russians can produce. And we’re already starting to see some reports, a few reports of shut in production because the pipelines can’t handle the flows to the volumes that are necessary because the refineries are offline. If and when the Ukrainians decide to go after the pumping stations on the pipelines themselves, then this whole part of the network breaks, and that will probably be the end of meaningful exports from Russian crude to the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. 

And as the Ukrainians continue to get better and better weapons, some of the distribution systems of the hubs in northern Russia will probably start getting hit as well. And that could really impinge upon the Baltic Pipeline system, which is where the Russians export crude from the Baltic Sea, from, near Saint Petersburg. The specific port escapes me at the moment. 

Anyway, so with the politics changed and the economic dependencies shifted, and the Ukrainians all of a sudden a lot better at what they were doing, we should expect a lot more Russian crude going offline. So regardless of what happens with the Trump administration and sanctions and its effort to peel, say, the Indians and or the Chinese away from the Russians, if the crude can’t flow, the crude can’t flow, and the Russian economic situation with then become a lot more difficult because oil sales remain what they have always been for Moscow, their single biggest source of income, going all the way back to Soviet times.

While I Was Gone, Part 4: US Security

Shield of the Federal Bureau of Investigation

To wrap up this short series on things that went down while I was away, we’ll be looking at some alarming developments in US security.

The FBI raided former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s home and office, under accusations of mishandling classified documents; that’s a bit rich coming from the current administration, but I digress. The bigger issue is that using federal law enforcement as a political weapon mirrors authoritarian states like Russia and China. This relates to the other big news, where Trump has ordered the US military to form specialized units for patrolling American cities; this is just all-around bad policy.

If there was a time for Congress to assert itself as the adults in the room, it would be now.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all. Peter Zeihan here coming to you from the Lake of the Ozarks. This is the last in our series of. What the hell were you thinking while I was gone? Was I backpacking for two weeks? And the world kind of fell apart. This time we’re going to talk about security in the United States borders. There are two big things that went down when I was gone, both of which concern me greatly. 

The first involves a gentleman by the name of John Bolton. John Bolton was a national security adviser, which is kind of America’s top foreign policy coordinator during the first Trump administration. But after seeing how the sausage was made inside, he left the administration and basically became a critic and has now been one of the more reliable voices for saying when Donald Trump is doing something that perhaps isn’t the brightest. 

Well, while I was gone, the FBI was ordered to raid his business and raid his personal residence. And he has now been accused of improperly handling classified materials. The hypocrisy of this is pretty rich. Anyone who is, like, independently minded will be able to tell in a second that the Trump administration is the least information secure administration we’ve ever had. 

We’ve already had a number of cabinet ministers, up to including the vice president, included in signal checks, which is a Russian penetrated not particularly secure platform in which they shared operational data. We’ve had situations most recently in the, the Alaska summit where informations and the personal information of security and diplomatic personnel, including their contact information, was just left on a printer. 

And we’re seeing a general disregard for all the counselor generals, assuming they haven’t been fired already, which are the people who are supposed to maintain information security within the administration. So this administration is leaking classified information massively. We even have our DNI who’s in charge of the intelligence system. Outing covert covert agents around the world on Twitter. 

And so to accuse Bolton of doing something inappropriate with documents is is really rich, especially since he has been in government service in this sort of role for over 20 years and has never even had a hint of that concern brought up, ever. I mean, there’s a lot of reasons to not like John Bolton. Mostly political or personal. 

He’s not a particularly nice gentleman, but no one has ever accused him of not being competent. So that’s number one. Using the FBI as a hit squad for political opponents, is something the United States has never done. This is right out of modern China or 2000s. Russia, or maybe a Latin American democracy. This is not a great thing. 

The second thing which actually concerns me even more is what’s being done with the military. The US military is designed to do military operations overseas. They’re designed to kill people and detect threats. But Trump has given the order for the military to form specialized units designed to specifically patrol and pacify American urban centers. Now, the US military is not good at law enforcement, and it has never been trained to be good at law enforcement. 

Third thing is to get in a tank or getting a jet and go overseas and do things there. When you put them into a law enforcement role, like we saw, say, in the Iraq occupation, things go to hell really quickly. Their equipment’s not right for the training is not right for it. It’s a mismatch. And so a lot of people died that probably didn’t need to. 

You take those same people and you put them on American soil and tell them to do law enforcement. And we’re in a very different situation. The only governments in modern history that use their military for urban pacification are those countries where occupying their own people is a national security issue. This is Iran. This is, to a degree, Russia. 

This is to a degree, North Korea. This is not something we want to see. Not only would it be violent, not only will there be a lot of political degradation because of it, not only will this erode the US military’s capacity to function. It is by far the most expensive way that you could possibly do it, because you’re taking people that you’d like to say trained to work on an Abrams tank. 

It’s people that you probably cost at least a quarter of $1 million just to do their training and then beaten them. Beat cops? No. So we have this cascading list of economic and social and political and health and national security military issues that just in the last two weeks have taken an absolute nosedive. 

I’m not a call to action guy, but we’re nearing the point pretty quickly where if Congress cannot find a backbone to re inject some sanity into American policy, we’re going to be having some severe degradations in our economic, social, and military models that are literally going to take us decades to unfuck. This is getting very real.

While I Was Gone, Part 3: Economic Status

Person using Forex trading on a laptop and phone

Today, we’ll be turning our attention towards the economic moves that the Trump admin made while I was away.

Intel was partially nationalized (10% government stake); this move supports semiconductor security but could also turn the company into a defense contractor rather than an innovator driven by profit. The Block Island wind farm project was completely halted…despite being nearly completed; this undermines US energy reliability, trust in government contracts, and the need for rapid energy expansion. And of course, Trump had to throw in an out-of-pocket personal attack with a Fed board member (Lisa Cook) over mortgage discrepancies, which is just another step towards making the Fed a political tool.

All these economic actions nudge the US further away from free-market capitalism, and closer to something where the government dominates industry, contracts, and monetary policy. However, experimenting with new economic models is inevitable, it would just be nice to let some other countries be the guinea pigs.

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all Peter Zeihan here. Coming to you from a rainy lake of the Ozarks. We’re continuing our series on. What the hell were you guys thinking while I was gone backpacking? Today we’re going to talk about some economic issues in the United States. We’ve got three things that you guys decided were good idea to do. A certain green. Got three ideas that you guys decided were good ones while I was gone. 

The first one was that Donald Trump partially nationalize Intel. Intel is, of course, America’s premier semiconductor manufacturing firm, taking a 10% stake for the government. This does not give the United States a seat on the board, but it does obligate the United States to pay for a lot of R&D. And if your goal is to near-shore semiconductor fabrication, there’s some serious logic here. 

And if your goal is to deepen the government’s involvement in design and control the technology, there’s some logic there as well. But it does come at a pretty significant cost. When you start to nationalize companies, they treat the government as one of their stakeholders, and they start to optimize their operations to do whatever the government wants that might achieve a national security goal, perhaps, but it comes at the cost of the company basically letting everything else fly, and reducing the profit motive to actually make the company better. 

They become more of a defense contractor. So pros and cons, Second big item is that the Trump administration issued a cease order for the Block Island windfarm off the coast of Rhode Island, and it’s really hard to spin this as a positive. The money had already been allotted. Things have been paid for. Remember, you have to pay for green tech projects pretty much upfront. And so the financing was all in place. 

The project was already 80% completed and was about to start wiring power next year. And now it’s just completely stopped. So number one, this is an investment issue. Number two, this is a foreign investment issue because the Danish companies were involved. And number three, it’s a power issue for the eastern seaboard. But most importantly, the federal government has now decided to kill the project specifically because Donald Trump doesn’t like wind turbines. 

He doesn’t like the way that they look now. Wind turbines in the right spots are among the most efficient ways of generating power. This isn’t like solar, where the it’s dark half the year. Wind, especially offshore wind, is a very strong, reliable source of energy. But Donald Trump doesn’t like the look of them. So from the point of view of contract law, the federal government has now established itself as a relatively unreliable partner in the power sector. 

And no matter what your interpretation of America’s near term future, whether you’re like me and you see, we need to double size of the industrial space with your tech guy and you want to massively expand AI. Whether all you want to do is replace the old infrastructure with new infrastructure. The United States needs to expand its power grid by at least 50% over the next several years, and all of a sudden, the federal government is no longer a positive contributing partner to that. 

And everyone who is involved in government contracting in the power sector is now going to be wondering if there’s any reliability at all. That’s really bad. If you’re trying to do something quickly, because the federal government will always be the single largest economic entity in the United States. And now it’s got people wondering if they can be trusted of all, because there’s no scientific reason, there’s no economic reason, there’s no financial reason. 

There’s no national security reason for this contract to be canceled. It’s just been canceled because Trump doesn’t like the look of windmills. That is very, very Latin American. The third issue is that Donald Trump has tried to fire or has fired a woman by the name of Lisa Cook, who is a member of the Federal Reserve Board. Now, the US Federal Reserve is basically the central bank of the United States. 

They say interest rates and manage monetary policies in order to manage the American economy. And under existing law, you cannot fire a board member unless there’s cause. The cause that Donald Trump cited was that Lisa Cook now stands accused of falsifying some data, on free home purchases she’s made over the last 10 to 15 years. I believe. 

In total, the three mortgages in question have a total finance value of about $1 million. Have all since been paid off. And he’s saying that she lied about it being her primary residence in order to get a slightly better interest rates. And we’re talking here about less than a half a percent. This is kind of rich because no charges have been brought. 

It’s simply an accusation. No data has been presented. But Donald Trump has been convicted in a court of law of over a half $1 billion of real estate fraud. So you know, there’s a little bit of a ocracy here. Whether or not if she were charged and found guilty, is qualifies her as a being fired for cause is a really open question. It’s really questionable whether the Supreme Court would rule that way. And this is a court that will absolutely go all the way it up. But the core issue here is Donald Trump has found a way to remake the Federal Reserve in his own image. 

One of the problems that Trump is facing is a lot of the tariff policies that are in place at the moment are highly inflationary and are driving economic activity out of the United States by making the United States a less reliable partner in things like manufacturing supply chains in addition, things like steel and aluminum, copper tariffs to make it much more difficult to construct anything, whether it’s in the power grid or your house. 

And so we are set up for higher inflationary, lower growth environment moving forward. So Trump’s idea is if we can reduce capital costs significantly, then we will have more economic activity. And faster growth that people will get credit for. The Federal Reserve would never go for that because that would be wildly inflationary. Think about what happened under the Biden administration when we had a series of federal spending projects, none of which Donald Trump has really trimmed down. 

That dumped a lot of money into the economy post Covid and generated faster economic growth, but faster inflation because we saw demand go up and up and up and up without an underlying increase in supply. What Trump is doing is constructing supply and now trying to goosed demand with interest rate policies, achieving something that’s at least as bad, for political reasons, demand scarcity or a directed demand, something like that. It’s a lot like, like wartime mobilization, where the government takes a larger role in the system controlling the production, but it’s not driven by a crisis, is driven by a change in macroeconomic fundamentals, and it’s is focused on demand as it is on supply. 

And if that sounds not particularly capitalistic, that’s because it’s not even remotely capitalistic. But as we’ve seen from the Donald Trump administration so far, that is really not a major concern. Nationalizing companies, he sees as a plus, taking over direct control, personal control of the monetary authority he sees as a plus. And the sacrosanct nature of contracts is not something he seems even remotely bothered by. 

These are characteristics that have a lot more in common with, like the Latin American flavor of socialism or even modern day China. And one thing that they do not generate is efficiency, or private ownership or private decision making. But kind of that’s the point. 

So none of these steps are good. They all basically make the federal government part of the problem, in a way that five years ago we would have said something that the liberals prefer to do, but now Donald Trump is there. The reason that this bothers me so much, but the reason why I’m trying to maintain an open mind is that the models that we use to manage our economy and by our, I mean humans are changing and need to change. 

For the last century, we’ve basically had four overarching economic models. We’ve had free market capitalism, which is something the United States tends to champion. Not anymore. We’ve had a European social model that is more based on social placidity and equality, but doesn’t generate as fast of economic growth and as much economic dynamism. Europe, of course, is known for that. 

You get command communism, where you have a central authority that makes most of the economic decisions. That’s Maoist China, that is the Soviet Union. And then you have something called fascist corporatism, where there’s a fusion of corporate interests and government interests. And that’s classically Nazi Germany, but also like 1970s and 1980s Korea, maybe a little bit of, Japan and certainly China today. 

All four of these models are based on the relationship between supply and demand and capital and labor. And with the world going not just through a globalization phase, but a massive population phase, we are losing access to labor and capital in the volumes and in the ratios that we’re used to, because when people retire, they take their money with them and they are no longer working. 

So we’re seeing a change in the fundamentals that define our four economic models. And we need to try something new. What that something will be is very much in play. But what the Trump administration seems to be pushing us towards, whether it’s consciously or not, is something that’s kind of like a constrained, managed demand model where the government is the single largest player in determining who gets what, and because of problems with supply and consumption. 

They’re actively ratcheting down demand because there won’t be enough stuff to go around. But Trump is also constraining artificially the supply of product within the American market. So whether this, constrained demand model is something that is going to be a thing in the future, I don’t know, it’ll probably need to be a lot more cohered than what we’re seeing out of Washington right now. 

But it is something we shouldn’t reject out of hand because we know the old models aren’t going to work. The primary concern that I have at the moment is that the United States has the healthiest democracy of any major country in the world, which means we don’t need to make the adjustments first. We can wait to see what everybody else does first and then sort of pick and choose. 

The idea that we are needs to be the ones at the vanguard of this next phase of economic theory, I think, is a bit of a stretch. And if we are going to do it, I would like to see it be a system that is a lot more coherent and a lot more geared to American strengths and weaknesses than what we’ve seen out of the administration these last couple of weeks. 

Soooo…. 

While I Was Gone, Part 2: US Health

Doctor with a stethoscope

RFK Jr. was busy while I was away. He downgraded several vaccines to only at-risk groups and tied licensing and insurance access to compliance. He fired the CDC director, prompting an exodus of credentialed medical staff. And he triggered a clash between Health and Human Services, the CDC, and the broader medical community.

When vaccines (aka one of the greatest contributors to modern health) get undermined, it sets off some alarm bells. This has surpassed health and politics, and it’s now a national security concern. mRNA vaccines enabled rapid COVID response, but they could also revolutionize biodefense.

Should this technology remained sidelined, the US will be unnecessarily vulnerable to biothreats. And I don’t see RFK Jr. being ousted from Trump’s political base anytime soon, so get ready for a fun ride…

Prefer to read the transcript? Click here

Transcript

Hey all, Peter Zeihan here. Coming from the Lake of the Ozarks, we’re continuing our. What the hell did you guys do over the last two weeks while I was gone? And today we had to talk about the intersection of health policy and national defense. While I was gone, RFK junior, who is the secretary of Health and Human Services, has basically downgraded most vaccines, specifically with the Covid vaccine, saying that they are no longer recommended for use for most Americans. 

Really, just for people who are at risk. And any doctors who decide to buck HHS recommendations, will no longer have state certification for things like insurance. Basically saying that I have made up some new rules. I have fired all of the doctors. And if you don’t follow my rules, then you can’t get insurance. 

Topping it off. He fired the director of the center for Disease Control. A woman by the name of, Miranda’s. And when she was let go, basically all the senior staff that have medical credentials left with her, which has left RFK to basically staff the world’s premier disease prevention and to deal with people who have basically no medical experience and are basically driven by conspiracy theories. 

So we are now setting up for a direct clash between HHS and the CDC and the medical community writ large. The health implications of this are, to say, dire by making doctors choose between being politically correct and actually providing medical care, and by denigrating vaccines which have been the single largest cause of the increase in the American health system for the last century. 

And basically pushing that down to the bottom is going to have some catastrophic outcomes moving forward. This is no longer purely an issue of health or politics. This has now graduated into the area of national security. And let me just give you one reason why we should all be very, very worried. Let’s look at MRNA vaccines. That’s the relatively new technology, less than a decade old, that was the backbone of what happened with Covid, which saved at least a million American lives, probably significantly more than just in the first year. 

MRNA vaccines are what you might call a digital vaccine. So with a traditional vaccine, you’re growing the virus in something like an egg yolk medium, and then you grow enough of it and kill the virus to make a weakened or a dead virus vaccine that you inject in order to trigger an immune response. 

That’s not how it works with mRNA. You identify a specific part of the virus that you think is going to be vulnerable, and then you digitally manufacture a molecule that interferes with that specific site. So the amount of organic material in an MRI vaccine is minimal, but also because it’s basically designed and manufactured, you can produce it very, very quickly. 

You can design your molecule in a matter of days. You can bring it in for a large scale production in a matter of weeks, rather than having to just inject egg after egg after egg after egg, and it will eventually produce enough of whatever it is for 300 million people. Because of that, any bio weapons defense system that the United States might have has always been next to impossible. 

Because once you identify what the enemy pathogen is going to be, you then have to go through this months long process of producing enough vaccine to combat it. With mRNA, you can do that in a month. So we’re now in a situation where all of our bio weapons defense systems have basically stopped because we have a freak show running the HHS and now that the CDC has basically been purged of doctors at the top levels, we no longer even have a voice in the federal government that is looking out for the health of American people at the moment. 

Robert Kennedy Jr continues to be wildly popular with the MAGA base, so I see no reason that Donald Trump is going to fire him. But it also means that the federal health authorities in the United States have basically become nonfunctional and now are contributing to America’s health care problems, rather than trying to mitigate them. Remember that earlier in this administration, all cooperation with international medical communities was basically severed. 

So the United States is now basically sitting in a box and digging itself into a hole and not even looking out for future threats, much less setting up the infrastructure to deal with them. Not good.